BritGuyTN

you could also say that Reagan foreign policy is responsible for the mess we are in with al qaeda and the taliban

Nothing to say of panama/nicaragua/contra and arms to Iran

I'm just taking a slightly contrarian stance

ugacrew

Feel free to. I was only reflecting on that part of is overall agenda. There's a lot he can be blamed for. You could also say with hindsight that his association with Sadam has led us to this quagmire as well. Again, just hindsight.

twiggy1984

Little confused? What exactly do you mean? The 22nd constitutional amendment refers to term limit for the Office of the President...

snowbunny

His fiscal policies cost my father his job and sent us into poverty. (I've said this before you joined, so I'll keep it brief). Beyond this personal grudge, there's Iran-Contra, the huge increase in military spending AND a huge cut in taxes sending the country into massive debt, and much, much more....

....but he's still wasn't as bad as Bush.

ugacrew

I'm sorry to hear that. I totally agree with you about the Reagan-Bush comparison. I don't think anyone could be worse. I'm not sure it was his military spending that did it since the military was deficient. I believe his practice of Trickle-Down economics is what ultimately did us in, ergo the stock market crash of '87. Anyway....

Manc

I think he's an empty suit.
He's too ready to pull apart other peoples ideas, but has never really elaborated on any of his own ideas

surly

Ironically he is some kind of conservative hero almost to the point of beatification, when his fiscal polices were the antithesis of conservatism.

Even GHWB called then voodoo economics.

surly

Even that has to be better than what we presently have, the illegal, paranoid criminal ideas of the present administration.

snowbunny

What's to stop an empty suit from being filled with more of the same ideas once the suit's in power? You need someone who can already fill out the clothes.

surly

Ralph Nader's not running.

Tootsie Frickensprinkles

I know

I was being facetious and referring to limiting Ken's term of office to two also. Sorry ... bit left field.

snowbunny

While I like the man's stance on issues, I will never forgive him for splitting the vote in 2000.

I wonder if he'd still do it with hindsight of all the destruction Bush has wrought.

gazza64

I agree Snowbunny, I admire Nader for sticking to his principles.
But even if the votes for Nader had gone to Gore, and Gore had become Prez,yes, the US would have signed up for Kyoto, but we would probably still be in the mess that is Iraq, given that the same "intelligence' reports written by the CIA,NSA,MI6 etc given to Bush would have been read by Gore, and maybe he would have come to the same conclusion that Saddam had WMD`s. I`m not trying to defend Bush. I know i have to be careful as i`m not American, but most agree he`s been a disaster for the US and the world in general.

As for Hillary and Obama. If i were American i`d go for Hillary for Prez and Obama as Vice Prez, that`s of course if they were to team up and run together. Ruby`s the best of the republicans, but still wouldn`t get my vote.

lapin_windstar

The first part of that post might have to do with the second! Spending billions on conventional warfare against an enemy that was dissolving (the Soviet Union - and NB the CIA was just as wrong about them as they were on Saddam), conniving (sp?) to break an arms embargo on Iran to fund fascists in Central America without legislature oversight, and propping up military regimes in Saudi and Pakistan, and funding Islamic extremists in Afghanistan (how did that work out for us?). Meanwhile at home, the inner cities dissolved through a combination of crack, poverty and unemployment.

Reagan - not a great president, even in comparison to the current resident.

Manc

not really.
Hasn't Obama openly decreed he'd go into Pakistan unilaterally.

how is that a good thing?

he's a know-nothing wannabe.